Saturday, 26 October 2013

Thatcher, Wallace and Savile, To Name A Few.

I first compiled this piece in February, but was persuaded not to publish it at that time.
It brings together quite a few facts about Kincora, Colin Wallace, UK Gov. Buck Palace and acknowledgement years ago, by those in a position to stop it - that the abuse was pandemic.

Ken Livingstone said:-

"I was raising in parliament against Mrs Thatcher the Kincora Boys Homewhere boys were being abused and MI5 was filming it because they werehoping to be able to blackmail senior politicians in Northern Ireland.They were hoping to catch one of Ian Paisley's MP's - and they never did- and give themselves some leverage. The truth is there's been an awfullot of covering up of paedophiles and paedophile rings for decades anddecades."

PARLIAMENT COVERED UP CHILD ABUSE FOR DECADES
These few sentences prove that Politicians of all parties have known for decades about the involvement of M15 and the Police in the sexual abuse of innocent British children. It demonstrates how M15 and the Police were not just involved in the cover-up but were actively using the sexual abuse of children as a tool to control Politicians and Judges.

This power over Politicians and Judges has given them the ability to create a Police State where the organised criminal endeavours of a sophisticated Rogue Police Organisation can be conducted with impunity and protected from exposure.

1n 1985 Geoffrey Dickens Tory MP provided a 50 page dossier to Leon Brittan who was Home Secretary at the time. Unsurprisingly nothing happened as Leon Brittan himself has been named as part of the Paedophile Ring. The Mirror wrote "The 50 pages contained information about suspected paedophile rings, police misconduct and abuse of boys in a care home."

Mr. Livingstone : I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that we do not have a further response from the Government to the points that have been raised. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the issue will not go away and that we will continue to raise it. There are other guilty men who should be in prison for what they did, or for what they did not do, but who remain free.

Sir Robert Lowry said when sentencing Mains, Sempel and McGrath : "It is not my custom, nor is it wise, to allocate blame to people who are not before the court. But many people will be surprised to learn that such a state of affairs as prevailed in this boys home was able to go on for so many years."

Ten years have elapsed, and there have been six inquiries, but still no satisfactory answer has been produced to Sir Robert's point.

It is a matter of widespread public concern in Northern Ireland in particular that, although the authorities knew since at least the early 1970s what was happening at Kincora, there was no intervention. The suffering and abuse inflicted on those boys continued. The word "abuse" cannot fully describe what was done. There were two decades of systematic, continuous, violent anal rape of the most appalling kind. I commend right hon. and hon. Members to read the boys' accounts. Many of them have grown into men whose lives can never be put back together. They live with the consequences of the treatment that they suffered. If there is any evidence that the state knew what was happening as early as 1974 but decided to take no action, that is a crime as grave as that of the sodomisers themselves.

ROGUE POLICE CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
The Rogue Police Organisation runs major Drugs Trafficking, the Porn industry and together with some clandestine groups connected to the Gladdio Scandal they also run illegal arms trafficking and child sex trafficking.

In fact the Rogue Police are a highly Sophisticated Criminal Organisation, who can arrange that only the little people, who do have authorisation to take a cut from their lucrative criminal enterprises, can be prosecuted. And of course they can arrange for the prosecution of anyone who might expose their Criminal Organisation. Conversely they can protect anyone who is useful to them for example Paedophile Sir Cyril Smith and Paedophile Sir Jimmy Savile.

Mr. Livingstone : I often find that people tend to hurry off when I am talking. It is a continuing problem that I have. It may be that people do not like to hear what I have to say.

This year, there has been a series of dramatic developments, and I refer not just to the findings of the investigation by "Public Eye". Earlier this year, after years of our hearing Colin Wallace being dismissed as a crank, a Walter Mitty figure, and someone who was to be ridiculed, the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House and admitted that there was evidence to support Colin Wallace's allegations. Although most press attention focused on Clockwork Orange and on whether there had been a campaign to destabilise the Labour Government in 1974, that was not the biggest crime. The vital point is that Colin Wallace was aware of events at Kincora and made his senior officers aware of them. He also drafted press briefing material that drew attention to the role of McGrath, who was running a paramilitary organisation called TARA. That material was forensically tested to provide evidence for Paul Foot's book, and it was proved that those documents were written at the time claimed by Colin Wallace and not after the event. The documents made it clear beyond doubt that senior Army intelligence officers and MI5 knew as early as 1974, and certainly by 1975, that systematic child abuse was occurring at Kincora--which was allowed to continue until 1980, until exposed not by the authorities but by the press.

We have a right to say that if the Government had devoted one tenth of the effort directed at denigrating Colin Wallace to investigating with an open mind the events at Kincora, the problem might by now be resolved, and all the guilty brought to justice.

We know that there is to be an investigation by Mr. Calcutt, but I regret that the Government have not made its terms wide enough to allow Mr. Calcutt to investigate Kincora. In the past, the terms of reference of those charged with investigating Kincora were so narrowly drawn that it was virtually impossible for them to investigate the claims that Army intelligence and MI5 knew what was happening. That has fed the strong suspicion that there was a reason for MI5 allowing that child abuse to continue. That is the most disturbing allegation that can be made.

SCALLYWAG ELM GUEST HOUSE AND M15
Scallywag in the 1990's first broke the story about M15 filming and Photographing the sexual abuse and torture of children from North Wales Children's Homes by senior Politicians. It was also exposed that Children from Homes in and around London were also used to trap Paedophile Politicians.

Who Framed Colin Wallace?

Paul Foot. Macmillan, London 1989.
On January 30, 1990, the Armed Forces Minister, Mr Archie Hamilton made an extraordinary statement to the House of Commons about the activities of Mr Colin Wallace. Mr Hamilton admitted that several key allegations consistently made by Mr Wallace were in fact true. Until this time, Wallace had been constantly cast by the Ministry of Defence, the police and sections of the press in the role of a 'Walter Mitty' fantasist. Now he was finally vindicated as a man who had told the truth while officialdom had lied.
Author Paul Foot, a Socialist investigative journalist with the Daily Mirror was initially sceptical of Wallace's claims. When Foot first rang the MoD in April 1987, he asked if it was true that Colin Wallace had served in a special MoD press unit in Ulster which dealt in "psychological operations" . He also asked if Wallace had taken part in circulating antiterrorist propaganda - some of it totally false; had Wallace been sacked for refusing to take part in political dirty tricks and had he ever served alongside the SAS? The MoD's reply was short and sharp No, no, no and no. He had been a mere information officer, he had nothing to do with psyops and he had resigned his post voluntarily. He had never served with the SAS.
Foot was almost ready to tell Wallace to get lost, but he was then able to produce evidence to back-up his claims. Who then is this seemingly ever present thorn in the side of the British establishment? What are his claims?

COLIN WALLACE
Wallace was born in Randalstown, Co. Antrim and was educated in the prestigious Ballymena Academy. He became an active officer in the Territorial Army from 1961 and a member of the Ulster Special Constabulary - the `B' Specials. In 1968 he took up a full-time past in Lisburn as a Public relations Officer for the Army in Northern Ireland.
When civil disturbances first broke out later that year and the troops were deployed on the streets in August 1969 he was regarded as a godsend. He lived on the Army HQ camp - the only indigenous officer in the whole barracks. He was constantly in demand because of his wide-ranging local knowledge.
Wallace claims that he soon became involved in "Psychological Operations" - black propaganda campaigns. One of his most notorious anti-IRA stories appeared in the Sunday Mirror in 1973 headlined "DANGER IN THOSE FRILLY PANTIES". This story suggested that female IRA volunteers were being killed by premature explosions as a result of static electricity building-up in their nylon underwear.

KINCORA
One of the most interesting parts of the Colin Wallace affair is the light he throws on the so-called Kincora scandal. Kincora was a boys' home in East Belfast which was run by three pederastic homosexuals - Joseph Mains, Raymond Semple and William McGrath. McGrath was also the leader of Tara, an extremist Protestant paramilitary organization and a leading light in a private Orange Lodge, LOL 1303. Foot alleges that Wallace tried to alert the authorities regarding what was going on at Kincora years before it finally came to light. He alleges that McGrath was working for MI5 and that the Security Service ignored the plight of the boys at Kincora to protect their investment. This reviewer was a member of LOL 1303 and actually knew William McGrath from 1975 up to the time of his arrest and conviction. He was always boasting of how much he knew about the activities of the IRA and the Eire army. Foot's information in the chapter on Kincora is impeccable as far as it goes.

According to Foot, Wallace was quite happy to confuse and discredit the IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups. He claims that things changed in 1973 when MI6 was replaced by MI5 in Lisburn. A top secret propaganda campaign was launched under the name of Clockwork Orange. Originally the project was to expose the personal inadequacies of top IRA and UVF members, but it soon spread to cover top political figures in Ulster and Great Britain.

Some of the project's papers suggested links between the Trotskyist theorist Ernest Mandel, Harold Wilson the then Prime Minister and the KGB. The intelligence services were spiralling out of control. Wallace was not only being asked to smear labour politicians and leading Socialists, but also the then Tory leader Edward Heath and others. in October 1974 he declined to take any further part in the Clockwork Orange operation. Shortly afterwards his world began to fall apart.

FRAMED?
He was dismissed from his post after being accused of leaking confidential information to a journalist. He moved to England and took up a job for Arun Council. Shortly afterwards, the husband of a friend and colleague was found dead. Wallace found himself accused of murder and was eventually sentenced to ten years' imprisonment after being found guilty of manslaughter. Wallace stoutly proclaims his innocence. Was he framed by the Security Service to discredit and silence him. Foot presents convincing evidence to prove his case that this has indeed happened.

Mr. Dalyell : If my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene once more while the Secretary of State is present, I emphasise the sheer anger that is felt by some of us. On 10 June, Colin Wallace wrote to the Prime Minister, mentioning certain persons by name :

"I enclose with this letter a selection of pages from a document which was typed during the period for the Information Policy unit by Mr. C. T. T. Whitehead, until recently Deputy Chief Press Officer at the MOD and currently with the Home Office".

At least a fortnight later, Mr. Whitehead had not been contacted and knew nothing of the matter. No one had bothered to do anything about Mr. Wallace's letter. There was a complete reluctance on the part of some individuals to get up off their backsides and find out more. That is why we are so angry.

Mr. Livingstone : I share my hon. Friend's anger. This issue should stand apart and not be subject to the usual restrictions on the length of time available for the Secretary of State to reply. It is not unusual when one writes to a Minister about detailed points of concern relating to Kincora that six months elapse before one receives a full reply. Instead, one is sent holding reply after holding reply. That suggests that someone is deeply worried. The television programme "Public Eye" on 2 June brought new information to the attention of the public. It definitely identified that by 1975 the state knew about the abuse of young boys at Kincora. Roy Garland, who had been number two in the paramilitary organisation TARA, as effectively its deputy commanding officer, approached the police. He had been frustrated by not being able to get some movement by the RUC on the allegations that he had heard, so he conveyed his concern to two intelligence officers based at Army headquarters in Lisburn. A meeting was arranged by one of Roy Garland's Christian contacts who had introduced him to an Army intelligence officer. Interviewed on "Public Eye", Garland said :

"I must say I had the impression they knew a lot already--that like most of these situations, there was nothing terribly radically new that I had to tell them. One of these officers appeared to be really concerned about the situation. Now, when I say concerned, he seemed concerned about McGrath's job and the political involvements as well, and he seemed really and genuinely concerned about it. He said he was a Christian, an evangelical Christian like myself."

Roy Garland never knew what had happened to the information that he gave the two Army intelligence officers, and assumed that nothing further had been done. We owe a debt of gratitude to the "Public Eye" programme, which managed to find out what did happen to that information. Thanks to Roy Garland--not someone with whom I agree politically--by 1975 both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Army intelligence knew that systematic child abuse was going on ; yet for a further five years lives were destroyed and devastated because of the abuse of young boys.

We need to know what happened to Roy Garland's information. The "Public Eye" programme managed to find the senior of the two Army intelligence officers who met Roy Garland. He was given the alias "James" in the programme ; for obvious reasons he does not wish to be named or identified, as certain people might want to take action against him, and I have no intention of naming him today. The officer was prepared to appear on television and to make very disturbing allegations. He claimed that the information that he had obtained from Roy Garland had been passed on to MI5. "James" continued to work in Northern Ireland for another year or two on various military intelligence operations, but was blocked from doing anything about the information from Roy Garland concerning child abuse.

The senior officer's job was targeting loyalist organisations to gather intelligence. Many people in Army intelligence at that time thought that there was a danger of UDI in Northern Ireland, and of some sort of coup d'etat. While the public believed that the main target was the IRA, a vast amount of Army intelligence work was devoted to the activities of some people who have managed to get themselves elected to the House of Commons. In retrospect, it will probably be found that Army intelligence got a bit excited and carried away ; I do not think that there was ever any realistic prospect of an independent Northern Ireland state, but often Army intelligence does get carried away, to say nothing of what happens in MI5.

Watching the programme, we waited with bated breath to see what happened to Roy Garland's information. It was clear that he had filed his report, which went to a senior MI5 officer--who had been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as Ian Cameron. In a letter to my hon. Friend on 26 June, Colin Wallace identified the officer concerned--

Mr. Dalyell : I have the letter here. It says :

"For example, the BBC Public Eye' programme demonstrated very clearly that :

(a) both Army Intelligence and MI5 were aware of the Kincora situation in the mid 1970s ;

(b) MI5 refused to allow one of its senior officers, Ian Cameron, to be interviewed by the police about the scandal".

Ministers should not take it that we are necessarily against the intelligence services. I do not want to be too personal, but it so happens that next Thursday--along with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)--I shall be attending a memorial service for George Young, formerly of MI6. To put it bluntly, people are not asked to do that if they are automatically against the intelligence services. Some of us are very concerned about this matter.

Mr. Livingstone : The MI5 officer who received the information indirectly was Ian Cameron. The Army intelligence officer wrote a report of his meeting with Garland, and sent it to his Army superiors as a matter of routine. He said that it was then passed to MI5--which shared the same building at Army headquarters--and that he was summoned to see the senior MI5 officer. On the "Public Eye" programme, he said of that meeting :

"I can't honestly say that I was expecting three gold stars but I went up feeling pretty positive, expecting a normal meeting. Instead I got blown out of his office. He's rude to me, he tells me that the kind of information that I have submitted is not proper intelligence, that we have nothing--we, as intelligence officers, don't dabble in homosexual affairs, that these moral matters are nothing to do with us. He vilifies my report, he tells me to cut off the contact. I can remember him saying to me words to the effect get rid of him, break the contact, just get rid'. I'm surprised because we had had a pretty good relationship going up until then. He blows me out of the office."

That, surely, is a remarkable position for one of the most senior MI5 officers on operational duty in the north of Ireland : having been told of systematic child abuse by a leading militant Protestant paramilitary, MI5 decided to do nothing about it.

We were told in the programme about other information made public by "James", the unidentified Army intelligence officer. We were told that he was involved in discussions about trying to blackmail another Unionist paramilitary leader, of suggestions that MI5 had film of that Unionist leader involved in homosexual activity, and of how that information was to be used to make him more amenable. It seems likely that, when MI5 arrived in the north of Ireland as the troubles blew up at the end of the 1960s and found--as we now know from all

Column 1173

the published accounts of intelligence sources there--that there was virtually no effective intelligence-gathering network, it would have found a nest of vipers burrowed away inside Kincora, and tremendous opportunities. One could either expose that abuse and stop it, or use it to entrap people that one wished to control--people who were perceived as a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom. I think that that is what happened--that MI5 was aware of what was going on at Kincora, but considered it more important to continue to gather intelligence that could be used to blackmail those Unionist politicians who were not part of the establishment network. I have not the slightest doubt that the prime target of much of that activity was the Democratic Unionist party. All kinds of rumours began to float around. The leader of the DUP--the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)--has raised in the House other attempts to smear leading members of his party, involving forged bank accounts and a network of rumour and suspicion. Senior officers in MI5 made a calculated decision that it was better, on balance, to allow the child abuse to continue, because the intelligece being gathered gave them a hold over some of the more eccentric figures inside the Unionist paramilitary organisations.

Mr. Dalyell : It should go on record that some of us think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues suffered far more, and far more outrageously, at that time than did Harold Wilson or Ted Short.

Mr. Livingstone : I agree with my hon. Friend. The vast amount of time that I have put into this matter has led me to the conclusion that the British state sought to destroy the hon. Member for Antrim North, but has been unable to do so. He was the prime target, not the IRA or the Irish National Liberation Army. For all our disagreements, he is a democratic politician who puts his views to the ballot box. Elements within the British security services decided to destroy him and his party by any means possible. Kincora was part of that. After three years of examining the matter, I have not found a shred of evidence to link that party with the events at Kincora, although I have had many interesting titbits dropped in my direction to try to lead me to make such a suggestion in a public speech.

In the past 10 years there have been six inquiries into Kincora, and a vast amount of work has been done. However, all the public disquiet remains.

In 1980, the first of the three RUC inquiries led to the conviction of McGrath, Mains and Sempel. A month after those

convictions--December 1981--the then Northern Ireland Secretary, James Prior, announced the establishment of a committee of inquiry to be headed by Stephen McGonagle, the former ombudsman for Northern Ireland. It sat for one day, three members resigned, and that was the end of that. McGonagle, who was interviewed on the "Public Eye" programme, made it quite clear that he thought that all the inquiries that had been conducted so far were unsatisfactory and had not indentified what had been going on, and that there needed to be a full, frank and open inquiry.

Two new investigations were set up after that. One involving possible criminal matters was headed by the chief constable of Sussex, Sir George Terry. Sir George was asked to oversee a new RUC inquiry into allegations

Column 1174

that Kincora was part of a homosexual vice ring involving civil servants and other prominent figures. That was conducted by the same RUC team under Superintendent George Caskey, who had brought McGrath and the others to justice. Sir George completed his report in October 1983. The following year, the public inquiry got under way with a retired English judge, William Hughes, as its chairman.

Whenever I have raised the matter in the House, I have been told again and again by leading members of the Government that it has been investigated by Hughes. The first page of the Hughes inquiry report states that under its terms of reference it was not investigating anything to do with the intelligence services or public figures. That is right at the beginning of the report--we do not need to read the rest of it. I ploughed through it-- it is not the lightest or most entertaining reading. It is quite a horrifying story. It is nonsense to suggest that that is the answer to the allegations that many hon. Members have raised.

The RUC team, led by Superintendent George Caskey, under the supervision of George Terry, tried to probe the activities of the Security Service, however. That came to light in the "Public Eye" programme ; most hon. Members had not been aware of it before. The programme makers tried to put key questions to the senior officer in MI5 but they were denied access to him by the Ministry of Defence. There we have the RUC charged with investigating this matter and being blocked, not by some criminal or by some sleazy character in the shadows, but by the Government--barred from interviewing the MI5 officer about why he had not acted on the information that was passed to him by Roy Garland. It is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Dalyell : Has my hon. Friend heard that Sir John Hermon was absolutely livid when he found out, albeit in retirement, exactly how he was treated and how his colleagues were treated? Sir John Hermon, whom I do not know, has every right to be extremely angry.

Mr. Livingstone : It will be obvious by now that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I are not defending people with whom we find ourselves broadly in political agreement. None of the people whom I have been defending so far would throw a vote my way this side of hell, but they were right. They were sought to be targeted and destroyed by the British state. Few people have been more critical than I of abuses by the RUC, but it is not the fault of the RUC that this matter has not been brought to a conclusion. It tried but it was blocked by the Ministry of Defence, which denied it access to the MI5 officer who refused to take action on the information that was passed to him from Roy Garland via the Army intelligence officer. Roy Garland told the RUC team about his meetings with the Army intelligence officer who was given the name James in the programme. The RUC then spoke to that Army intelligence officer, and he gave his account of the way in which he had been treated by the senior MI5 officer who refused to take action. It was obvious that the RUC would need to interview that MI5 officer.

Its attempt to gain access to MI5 began at Stormont, at a meeting with a deputy secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, who had recently been attached to the Ministry of Defence. Arrangements were made for detectives from the RUC team to visit Ministry of Defence offices in London. Over two months, several meetings took place between the RUC and an official representing the Ministry of Defence,

Column 1175

but, despite repeated requests, the MI5 officer was never made available for interview. No explanation was ever given. Further approaches were made through the Northern Ireland Office and, eventually, a compromise was reached. The RUC would submit a series of questions in writing. The list of questions included why no action was taken to investigate the allegations Army intelligence had passed on, why the Army intelligence officer concerned was told to drop Kincora, why he was told to set up contact with the source, and whether MI5 knew what was going on in the home and, if MI5 did know, whether it was prepared to let it continue for another purpose. No answers to those questions were ever received.Hansard extracts taken from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198990/cmhansrd/1990-07-05/Debate-5.html

The Government yesterday launched a second investigation into the Colin Wallace affair after the Prime Minister admitted she had been personally misled over the existence of a black propaganda operation by security agencies in Northern Ireland in the 1970s.
The Ministry of Defence will investigate how confidential papers about the duties of the former senior Army information officer went missing and were not brought to the attention of ministers when they denied the operation. A Commons statement on the affair will be made today by Mr Tom King, Secretary of State for Defence, with the Labour leadership urging the intervention of the Commons select committee on privileges and with some MPs pressing for a wider inquiry. Yesterday details began to emerge of how officials belatedly unearthed two documents relating to the Clockwork Orange propaganda campaign in which Mr Wallace was involved. They were uncovered by an MoD official as he searched through the archives for job appointment application records. Previous searches had failed to uncover any reference to Mr Wallace's claimed role in psychological warfare operations. That was because officials had only examined Mr Wallace's personal file. The Prime Minister was one of those ministers caught out by the failure to make wider searches. She said yesterday in a letter to a Tory MP that an examination of departmental papers had brought to light information that showed a number of statements in her letters and in other ministerial statements and official correspondence were incorrect.
"Inquiries are being made to establish how these errors in the handling of departmental papers occurred."
The Times has learnt that during a cross-checking of general files that listed a whole range of jobs in Ulster, the official came across a document referring to Clockwork Orange, which recorded an oral description given to Mr Wallace of a covert role he would be expected to play. Another document said he would be expected to give unattributable briefings to journalists.
Mr Wallace, who was dismissed in 1975 for leaking a restricted document, has claimed that he was victimized because he exposed dirty tricks.

Tom O'Carroll

"Tom O'Carroll... argues that sex with children is not harmful.... The 56-year-old is Ireland's most notorious paedophile. He moved to Leamington Spa in 1972 where he established the Paedophile Information Exchange. Since its formation, the organisation has called for the open discussion of paedophilia and the abolition of laws against consensual sexual acts between children and adults. And the 'boy lover' - as he calls himself - has addressed international conferences across the globe and written a book justifying the behaviour of those who prey on children. Mr O'Carroll and five other members of the exchange were convicted for 'conspiring to corrupt public morals' in the 1980s by publishing a magazine advocating sex with children. He joined the After Dark panel for a discussion on paedophilia and child protection. Also on the panel were high profile child protection campaignerEsther Rantzen, lawyer Helena Kennedy QC, a former abuse victim, a criminologist, a solicitor and two academics. The BBC defended the decision to give a platform to Mr O'Carroll, saying he was invited on as part of a legitimate discussion about a topical issue."[105]

The Prince and the Pedophile: Charles’ Connections to Pedophilia Networks

November 23, 2012 Freemasons, Government Corruption, Human Rights, News Articles, Parental Rights, Templars Of The Crown, US News, World News

Fresh on the heels of the fallout from revelations regarding former BBC entertainer Jimmy Savile and his unbelievably sickening and innumerable instances of child molestation as well as the “look the other way” approach taken by the BBC, more and more questions are now emerging in regards to the connection between Savile and British Royalty, most notably Prince Charles.

At least, more questions should be emerging.

Unfortunately, however, the British mainstream media is deeming Prince Charles and the rest of his ilk in positions of power and perceived genetic royalty as if they are beyond reproach. This approach is typical and to be expected, yet it is also highly ironic considering the fact that such is the same position the mainstream media took with the allegations against Jimmy Savile for so many years.

As a result of the Savile affair, mainstream outlets, particularly the BBC, now have a lot of egg on their faces in the areas of credibility and respect.In short, any connections placing Prince Charles in an uncompromising position regarding his connections with Savile or his potential for sharing a penchant for unnatural relationships with children is being completely ignored if not officially covered up.

Although Prince Charles’ friendship with Jimmy Savile, allegedly begun when the two met in the 1970s during the course of working with children’s wheelchair sports charities, is now well-known, the extent to which the Prince and the Pedophile were connected appears to go much deeper than the mainstream media reports let on.

Of course, the two having come in contact at a “charity” event for the disabled is not too far-fetched, even if it is being reported by corporate outlets. After all, using children’s “charities” as a hunting ground and a cover for his true motives was a notorious method used by Savile who actually lived in children’s homes and hospitals so as to be closer to his victims. This method is by no means specific to Savile, however, as many other sexual predators and pedophiles know exactly what areas of society to be involved in and what careers to pursue in order to gain access to their victims. Jerry Sandusky stands as a perfect example.

Clarence House, Prince Charles’ spokesman, declined comment on much of the relationship between Savile and Charles, only claiming that the relationship was mostly a result of their “shared interest in supporting disability charities.”

Supporting charities, indeed.

Of course, Savile was doing much more than “supporting disability charities.” That is, unless one places serial child rape in a much different category than the average person might. Indeed, one would not be judged out of place to question whether or not untold numbers of sexually assaulted children thoroughly cancels out any financial “support” that may have been given in the past. Apparently, in the view of British royalty, it does not.

In fact, child molester Savile has enjoyed an unbelievable level of access to the Royal Family for the past 40 years.

For instance, in the late 1980s, Savile was said to have acted as a type of marriage counselor between Charles and Diana, visiting their residence several times. At these visits, Dickie Arbiter, who took care of media relations for the Prince and Princess between 1988 and 2000 stated that, at these visits, Savile’s behavior was uncouth to say the very least.

Arbiter stated,

He would walk into the office and do the rounds of the young ladies taking their hands and rubbing his lips all the way up their arms if they were wearing short sleeves. If it was summer [and their arms were bare] his bottom lip would curl out and he would run it up their arms. This was at St James’s Palace. The women were in their mid to late 20s doing typing and secretarial work.

Not only that, but Savile was brought in to the private marital affairs of the Royals once again in order to help the Duchess of York, Sarah Ferguson, in matters which were not disclosed to the public. Savile later claimed he was brought in to help “Fergie” keep her profile down.

Obviously, the relationship forged between Charles and Savile went far beyond two men who merely performed charity work for the same organizations. This can be evidenced by the fact that, in 1990, Charles even consulted Savile for advice on the appointment of a senior aide for himself and Princess Diana.

The relationship between Charles and Savile, particularly Savile’s access to the Royal Family’s affairs and the respect which was afforded Savile in this regard, has confused many onlookers. After all, Savile was nothing more than a BBC presenter and disc jockey who was well past his prime. Not to mention the fact that Savile was well known as an uncontrollable freak, although many were under the impression that Savile’s television persona was merely part of his schtick.

Yet the clues to the Prince’s friendship with the Pedophile might have more to do with similar interests in entertainment than a mere happenstance relationship. Although the evidence which connects Prince Charles to pedophilia is nowhere near as documented as that of Jimmy Savile, a trail of information certainly seems to be leading in that direction.

At this point, it should be mentioned that, although the official line is that Savile and Charles met in the 1970s as part of the coincidence of mutual charity work, Savile himself has stated that he was friends with the Royal family “for a million years.” In fact, it was reported that Savile actually stated he was introduced to the Royals in 1966 by Lord Mountbatten, a known pedophile and sexual pervert. In addition to Mountbatten, however, Greg Hallett, in his book Hitler Was A British Agent, also names Prince Philip as a pedophile. In reference to how he became introduced and ingratiated with the Royal family, Savile stated,

Coming from Lord Louis, who was the favourite uncle of Prince Philip, that was quite something. So obviously I hooked up with the Prince – what was good enough for Lord Louis was good enough for him.

So, already, we have Savile, a notorious pedophile linked to other individuals of the Royal Family named as pedophiles as well. Prince Philip, of course, is Prince Charles’ father. Lord Mountbatten is largely considered Charles’ mentor.

Savile was indeed close to British Royals as well as other elites for many years. It seems his qualification for such high connections were mainly due to his ability to obtain children for the twisted appetites of those considered beyond reproach for the mainstream media and, unfortunately, the general public.

Savile himself seemed to hint at this possibility in an interview conducted with Esquire where he stated, “The thing about me is I get things done and I work deep cover.”

Savile’s ridiculous television show (created for the sole purpose of enhancing his access to children) was thus appropriately named, Jim’ll Fix It. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public were completely unaware as to what he was fixing and who he was fixing it for.

Essentially, it is clear that Jimmy Savile was a procurer of children not only for himself but also for wealthy pedophiles all across the world, particularly in Britain. Even Savile’s own nephew has recently gone public with information tying Savile to a network of pedophiles and sick sexual parties where children were repeatedly raped. Guy Marsden, Savile’s nephew, also stated that the parties were attended by household names in show business.

However, as is being widely reported in the news, Savile’s escapades of pedophilia were by no means limited to parties with the elite of entertainment. Many of his attacks on children took place in the halls of the hospitals and charities he helped fund and operate, even residing in his own personal room at two of these institutions. At this point, it is worth noting that Savile and Prince Charles are open “supporters” of the same charities.

Apparently, Prince Charles and the Pedophile did have some similar tastes, some of which were even reported by the mainstream media. In 1999, after the Prince accepted Savile’s invitation to a private meal at Savile’s home in Glencoe, Scotland, Savile had arranged for three women to parade around dressed in pinafores, a type of dress without sleeves and an open back that is often worn over other dresses. Interestingly enough, pinafores were often worn by children.

After the dinner, Charles wrote Savile a Christmas Card with a note that read, “Jimmy, with affectionate greetings from Charles. Give my love to your ladies in Scotland.”

Of course, the mainstream is certain that Charles is referring to the local women brought in for the Royal entertainment. However, unless the hired help made an exceptional impression upon the mind of Charles, one must wonder whether or not these particular ladies are the “ladies” to which Charles is referring in his Christmas note. After all, Savile’s Scottish cottage was also the scene of much child abuse as well.

Later, Charles sent Savile a box of cigars and a pair of gold cufflinks on his 80th birthday along with another note that cryptically read, “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.” Fortunately, many are now aware of what Jimmy has done for his country. Clearly, it would be best if they are given the full story along with it.

This is not likely to happen, however, as global pedophile rings are generally made up of some of the most elite individuals the world over. This is particularly relevant when it comes to any questions regarding the behavior of the Royal Prince. At any moment when there is a chance that information might be leaked that would be damaging to the reputation of genetic royalty, the documents are sealed, the whistleblowers are dealt with, and the controversy covered up.

Some have even speculated that Princess Diana sealed her own fate after threatening to reveal networks of pedophilia within the Royal family. Indeed, Diana did speak of “dark forces” and members of an “organization” that were monitoring her shortly before her death.

For instance, when it appeared that the so-called Black Spider Memos, a series of letters written by Charles to government ministers, would damage the perception of Charles’ impartiality if he were to become king, then memos were immediately blocked by the British government. Indeed, it would be extremely interesting to see the contents of the letters, since, in reality, the impartiality of the king is truly irrelevant in the grand scheme of British society and government.

What is particularly interesting is that the letters are being blocked from release now, as the biggest pedophilia scandal in British history is unfolding – specifically, at a time when one of the main focal points of the scandal, Jimmy Savile, was a close friend of the Prince. Even more so, it comes at a time when British government officials are also being implicated in pedophilia networks.

For those who may still be under the impression that pedophilia is a crime beyond the capabilities of British politicians, take a look at this partial compilation of British politicians convicted of pedophilia in recent years.

But, while the connections between Prince Charles and the Pedophile Jimmy Savile are themselves enough to make one wonder, the fact is that Savile is not the only relationship with a potential pedophile that Charles has maintained.

As reported by the Digital Journal, the Right Reverend Peter Ball is the most senior member of the Church of England to be arrested for offenses against children. Ball was arrested on eight suspected cases of abuse against boys and young men ranging from ages 12 to 20 during the 1980s to 1990s. Ball, who was the former Bishop of Gloucester, resigned in 1993 after he was served with a police caution for “committing an act of gross indecency against a teenager.”

Upon his resignation, Ball retired to Manor Lodge, “a wisteria-clad property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall.” Manor Lodge is a property of the Prince’s Duchy of Cornwall.

In reference to his new living arrangements, Ball stated, “He (Prince Charles) has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house. The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person.”

Considering the connections and personal friendships maintained by Prince Charles, one must question whether or not Charles himself has had some experience in the underworld of pedophilia. At the very least, the Prince is the absolute worst judge of character who ever lived.

What is also very interesting regarding the people named in these child sex scandals and the scope of the scandals themselves, is that the individuals who have been trying their best to bring this information to light have been ignored and derided for years on end. This has been the case whether the individuals were whistleblowers, researchers, or even victims themselves.

For instance, while much of mainstream Britain has had quite a time laughing at David Icke, suddenly his claims do not seem so fantastic and funny after all. Indeed, it was Icke who mentioned the global cabal of pedophiles and even many of the participants in them by name many years ago. While his voice was scarcely heard above the laughter at the time, he is, at the very least, on the record as having exposed these networks early on.

As for Icke’s remarks regarding the scandal today, he had this to say on November 7, 2012.

This guy, William Hague, the foreign Secretary, needs to be questioned on why that Welsh inquiry into the massive pedophilia in Welsh children’s homes was given the brief that it did and therefore stopped these kids from talking about what happened to them. And this is the big thing. If the police investigation does not knock on the door of Buckingham Palace over this whole Savile [case] and the wider implications that have followed then it’s a cover up. Because the British Royal family are fundamentally involved in this right to the top. Right up to the people like Prince Philip and all these other people . . . . . This man [Savile] was an aging sleazy disc jockey, right? And he had complete access to the British Royal family AND they used him as an official go-between [with] Prince Charles and Princess Diana when they were falling out in their marriage. And now it’s come out this week that he was advising Prince Charles on aids to employ. Why is this man so close or was so close to the British Royal Family? The answer to that will bring the British Royal family down.

The Good Guys

Comments

Anybody posting links not related to the content of this blog will be classed as spam and discarded. Trolls will be discarded. Any malicious communications will be strictly reported to the police with immediate effect.

I fully support any police actions should they arise from malicious comments reported.

No copying or quoting my own work without permission, thank you.

This includes but is not restricted to; the maps, photos, survivors stories, investigative results.